Using story-based methodologies to explore physics identities:How do moments add up to a life in physics?

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Qualitative Methods in PER: A Critical Examination.] This article details methodologies employed to enable sharing and coconstructing the stories of three women’s lives in physics. The first case explores the usefulness of timeline interviewing, where participants narrate episodes that are coconstructed with the researcher as meaningful over time. We illustrate this method in the case of a mature student in Sweden from a working-class background who shared moments that added up to a life outside of physics and then a sharp turn into physics later in life. The second case explores life-history interviewing using a narrative-inquiry approach and deep relationship building which enabled the coconstruction of stories of experiences over time. These moments are coconstructed with the researcher and analyzed using an intersectionality lens to yield a story depicting the transnational experiences of a woman of color moving across various European contexts into the North American physics context. The final case is of a first-generation Canadian woman of color who shared her navigations of in and out of school physics via a method known as the “Rivers of Life.” Using this method, the participant narrates their experiences with physics as a river, using metaphorical tools like rafts, rocks, rapids, tributaries to discuss various moments described as twists and turns over time that together amount to a life in physics. We discuss the value of different approaches to coconstructing narratives with participants and, in particular, the need for this kind of research in physics contexts

To be seen and to learn, without being seen to learn : A study of under-achievement and identity-negotiation among privileged young men in upper-secondary school

In the last decade stratification within educational results has, in Sweden as in other countries, been framed as a matter of boys’ and young men’s under-achievement. The question of whether this is a problem, and if so, for whom and how to change the structure, has been discussed in research and educational policy. The aim of the thesis is to contribute to these fields and to enhance knowledge of young people’s gendered and classed identity processes, by analyzing how achievement and engagement were negotiated and given meaning in relation to young men. Previous research has primarily explored identity processes among “risk categories” or subordinated students. The objective here was to analyze how masculinity was accomplished via peer-group interactions within a rarely problematized category, through examining how upper middle-class young men identify themselves and are ascribed identities by others. The study’s design was inspired by ethnographic methodology and combined participant observation, semi-structured individual and group interviews and a background questionnaire. Identities, social categorizations (especially gender and class) and dominance-relations were thus analyzed from an actor-oriented perspective. The research participants were young men and women, age 15-16, in two school classes. The field work was conducted at, respectively, a Natural Science and a Vehicle Programme; educational settings with connotations to masculinity but significantly different in terms of class. The study enrolled a total of fifty-six students, but focus is upon the fifteen young men among the natural science students.  High achievement and under-achievement, high social and cognitive ability, and group loyalty are main themes in the study. Identity claims were analyzed in relation to the practices through which they were negotiated, e.g. self-hindrance. Similar to other research, the results emphasize the relationship between masculinity and “effortless achievement”. The concept “under-achievement” is developed as an analytical tool, by distinguishing between five dimensions

Bridging questions of 'who' and 'what' in science education research

The poster will report on the initial phases of a project that takes a novel approach to understanding processes of inclusion and exclusion within science, focussing on trajectories into higher physics education and students from under-represented groups. The project is situated in the intersection between the fields of science identities research (cf. Carlone & Johnson 2007) and didactics. The aim of the poster presentation is to examine how these fields can inform each other (in particular when approaching issues related to inequalities in higher education (e.g. gender, class)). In this presentation we review key works that develops the concepts science capital and didactic modelling, in that these concepts have the potential to become influential (according to the criteria by Davis (2008)). In spite of engaging with similar issues – e.g. student subjectification in educational practices – the conversation between the fields of science identities and didactics has been very limited. Yet, our literature review indicates that science identities research has the potential to contribute more nuanced understandings of how students are positioned in the teaching and learning of science to didactic models, while still attending to detailed student-content interactions. Drawing on this, we will discuss how a research design utilising life-history interviews and participatory research methods can take the affordances and constraints of the two fields into account. Introduction In the contemporary society, science and technology have high status and are seen as crucial both for the individual, in order to make informed decisions about complex socio-scientific issues, and for the society at large. Hence, the lingering uneven participation in the disciplines is both a question of national economic security and a social justice issue. As such, a nuanced understanding of processes of inclusion and exclusion in science education are vital. This poster presentation will introduce a project that takes a novel approach to understanding processes of inclusion and exclusion within science, by focusing on students from under-represented groups who do participate in higher science education (particularly physics). Given the lack of success of current initiatives for widening participation in science, it is clear that it is necessary to advance the knowledge into inclusion and exclusion in the disciplines. Despite being highly ranked on the Global Gender gap rankings by the World Economic Forum (4th in 2017), Sweden still has a highly uneven recruitment in terms of gender to higher education in the physical sciences. On a similar note, Swedish higher education is highly divided by social class, despite many structural obstacles (such as tuition fees) not being in place (Börjesson et al. 2016). Thus, trajectories to higher education physics in Sweden provides an interesting case for exploring more subtle mechanisms contributing to the uneven participation in the physical sciences. Two strong contemporary trends in science educations research are science identities research and didactic modelling. The emerging field of science identities research (cf. Carlone & Johnson 2007; Holmegaard et al. 2014; Archer 2014) makes use of sociocultural theories of activity and identity to explore how various participants relate to science, and the consequences of this relationship for their choices, interests, aspirations, and participation. Didactics can be considered as the professional science of teachers and aims to support teachers’ choices of content and methods in their teaching practice (Wickman 2014). Hence, tools and theories from didactics in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (cf. Lundqvist et al. 2009) are central in order to make such practices, traditions and customs visible and in order to establish systematic grounds for teachers’ choices. In summary, science identities research and didactics in science are both in a sense concerned with inclusions and exclusions in science education. However, while the former field is mostly focused on questions of ‘who’, the latter is mostly focused on questions of ‘what’. The aim of the poster presentation is to examine how the fields of science identities research and didactics can inform each other, when approaching issues related to inclusion and exclusion in science teaching. In addition, we will discuss how a research design of a participatory research project can take the affordances and constraints of the two fields into account. Method Methodologically we take a qualitative, interpretative stance inspired by sociocultural theories of activity and identity, which posit that identity is co-produced with social, cultural and material activities (Holland et al. 1998) and is based in an intersectional, post-structural understanding of social categories (cf. Phoenix 2006). This poster presentation draws on an exploratory literature review, examining contemporary key works within the fields of science identities research and didactics in science, which can be understood as dealing with questions of inclusions and exclusions (either in relation to educational content and/or students as situated within societal power structures). Here we will zoom in on studies concerning science capital and didactic modelling, as these theoretical concepts have the potential to become influential according to the criteria for successful theories within social science (fundamental concern; novel twist; appeal to generalists and specialists; ambiguity and incompleteness) discussed by Davis (2008). Science capital was first introduced in 2012 by Louise Archer and her team, and has since gained considerable attraction within science education (the most well-cited papers have been chosen for analysis), and is part of a wider science education tradition focused on identity constitution, which also will be considered in the analysis (cf. Carlone and Johnson 2007). Didactic modelling is a concept developed in a graduate school in science education, founded on a collaboration between two of the more influential education research environments in Scandinavia (cf. Wickman et al. 2018). This concept is developed within the tradition of pragmatist didactics, and to trace this concept well-cited papers within this tradition have been analysed (e.g. Wickman and Östman 2002; Lidar 2006). The analysis of the selected studies focuses on how these approach the questions of ‘what’ and ‘who in the teaching and learning of science. In the second stage, we have developed a preliminary research design, that utilises the affordances of both fields in order to mitigate aspects that the fields may have overlooked.  Results Science identities research and didactics are both concerned with inclusions and exclusions in science education. However, the fields approach this issue from differing perspectives. An important conceptual device within science identities research is science capital, developed by Archer et al. (2015) drawing on the Bourdieusian concept of capital. Science capital collates a person’s science related economic, cultural and social resource. The concept of ‘science capital’ has been demonstrated to provide a more fine-grained analytic lens for predicting students’ science aspirations and identities than cultural capital (DeWitt et al 2016). However, in comparison to how didactics approaches science teaching and learning, the analyses are on a more over-arching level, often focusing cultural characteristics and science (such as how science is considered difficult and/or demanding a particular talent). Didactics of science, on the other hand, is concerned with the questions: ‘What content is to be taught?’, ‘How is the content going to be taught?’ and ‘Why teach this content and why in this way?’, thus allowing for a more detailed consideration of how students and teachers approach science as a field of knowledge. Here didactic models has gained quite a lot of attention lately. Didactic models are not to be considered as models for ‘best practice’, rather they are to be understood as situated conceptual frameworks (Wickman 2012). Our argument is science identities research has to potential to contribute more nuanced understandings of how students are positioned in the teaching and learning of science to didactic models, while still attending to detailed student-content interactions. Conclusions and Discussion Science identities research is just starting to influence science education practices (cf. Birmingham & Barton 2014) and despite engaging with similar issues to the field of didactics concerning student subjectification (cf. Biesta 2009), the conversation between the fields have been very limited. In addition, in longitudinal studies of science identity development (such as ASPIRES, cf. Archer & DeWitt 2017), tracing students from a young age, very few will end of choosing higher science education. As indicated by our literary review, there is potential in letting science identities studies more directly inform didactic modelling. However, we agree with Wickman (2012) that it is essential that the models, while attending to the specificities of a certain educational content are not so detailed that they oversee the contingent aspects of every teacher’s situation. We suggest that a possible research design that does this would entail: 1) a targeted approach that collect large scale qualitative data from students from under-represented groups, 2) that thick, in-depth empirical data concerning such ‘unlikely’ science students is collected (e.g. through life-history interviews), to serve as a starting-point for 3) researchers and experienced teachers to collaboratively construct didactic models. Acknowledgement This work is funded by a research grant from the Swedish Research Council (dnr. 2018:4985). References Archer, L., & DeWitt, J. (2017). Understanding young people’s science aspirations. London: Routledge. Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A. & Wong, B. (2015). ‘‘Science capital’’: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending Bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 922-948. Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22(1), 33-46. Birmingham, D. & Barton, A.C. (2014). Putting on a green carnival: Youth taking educated action on socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3), 286-314. Börjesson, M., Broady, D., Dalberg, T. & Lidegran, I. (2016). Elite education in Sweden: A contradiction in terms? In Maxwell & Aggleton (Ed.), Elite education: International perspectives on the education of elites and the shaping of education systems (pp. 92-103). London: Routledge,. Carlone, H. and Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187-1218. Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory, 9(1), 67–85. DeWitt, J., Archer, L. & Mau, A. (2016). Dimensions of science capital: exploring its potential for understanding students’ science participation. International Journal of Science Education, 38(16), 2431-2449. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W.S., Skinner, D. & Cain, C. (1998). Figured worlds. Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Holmegaard, H.T., Ulriksen, L.M. & Madsen, L.M. (2014). The process of choosing what to study: A longitudinal study of upper secondary students' identity work when choosing higher education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(1), 21-40. Lundqvist, E., Almqvist, J. & Östman, L. (2009). Epistemological norms and companion meanings in science classroom communication. Science Education, 93, 859-874. Phoenix, A. (2006). Interrogating intersectionality: Productive ways of theorising multiple positioning. Kvinder, Køn & Forskning, 2-3, 21-30. Wickman, P.-O. (2012). Using pragmatism to develop didactics in Sweden. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 15(3), 483-501. Wickman, P.-O. (2014). Teaching learning progressions: An international perspective. In Lederman & Abell (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (2nd edition) (pp. 145-163). Routledge: New York. FUS

'Smart students get perfect scores in tests without studying much':why is an effortless achiever identity attractive, and for whom is it possible?

Discourses about the value of effort and hard work are prevalent and powerful in many western societies and educational contexts. Yet, paradoxically, in these same contexts effortless achievement is often lauded, and in certain discourses is heralded as the pinnacle of success and a sign of genius. In this paper we interrogate discourses about effort and especially ‘effortlessness’ in Swedish and English educational contexts. Informed, in particular, by interview data generated in upper secondary schools in Sweden and secondary schools in England, we address the questions: why is effortless achievement attractive, and for whom is it possible to be discursively positioned as an effortless achiever? We argue that the subject position of ‘effortless achiever’ is not available to all categories of students equally, and for some it would be almost impossible to attain; the intersections of gender, social class, ethnicity and institutional setting are influential. We end by considering the problematic implications of effortless achievement discourses

Bridging questions of 'who' and 'what' in science education research

The poster will report on the initial phases of a project that takes a novel approach to understanding processes of inclusion and exclusion within science, focussing on trajectories into higher physics education and students from under-represented groups. The project is situated in the intersection between the fields of science identities research (cf. Carlone & Johnson 2007) and didactics. The aim of the poster presentation is to examine how these fields can inform each other (in particular when approaching issues related to inequalities in higher education (e.g. gender, class)). In this presentation we review key works that develops the concepts science capital and didactic modelling, in that these concepts have the potential to become influential (according to the criteria by Davis (2008)). In spite of engaging with similar issues – e.g. student subjectification in educational practices – the conversation between the fields of science identities and didactics has been very limited. Yet, our literature review indicates that science identities research has the potential to contribute more nuanced understandings of how students are positioned in the teaching and learning of science to didactic models, while still attending to detailed student-content interactions. Drawing on this, we will discuss how a research design utilising life-history interviews and participatory research methods can take the affordances and constraints of the two fields into account. Introduction In the contemporary society, science and technology have high status and are seen as crucial both for the individual, in order to make informed decisions about complex socio-scientific issues, and for the society at large. Hence, the lingering uneven participation in the disciplines is both a question of national economic security and a social justice issue. As such, a nuanced understanding of processes of inclusion and exclusion in science education are vital. This poster presentation will introduce a project that takes a novel approach to understanding processes of inclusion and exclusion within science, by focusing on students from under-represented groups who do participate in higher science education (particularly physics). Given the lack of success of current initiatives for widening participation in science, it is clear that it is necessary to advance the knowledge into inclusion and exclusion in the disciplines. Despite being highly ranked on the Global Gender gap rankings by the World Economic Forum (4th in 2017), Sweden still has a highly uneven recruitment in terms of gender to higher education in the physical sciences. On a similar note, Swedish higher education is highly divided by social class, despite many structural obstacles (such as tuition fees) not being in place (Börjesson et al. 2016). Thus, trajectories to higher education physics in Sweden provides an interesting case for exploring more subtle mechanisms contributing to the uneven participation in the physical sciences. Two strong contemporary trends in science educations research are science identities research and didactic modelling. The emerging field of science identities research (cf. Carlone & Johnson 2007; Holmegaard et al. 2014; Archer 2014) makes use of sociocultural theories of activity and identity to explore how various participants relate to science, and the consequences of this relationship for their choices, interests, aspirations, and participation. Didactics can be considered as the professional science of teachers and aims to support teachers’ choices of content and methods in their teaching practice (Wickman 2014). Hence, tools and theories from didactics in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (cf. Lundqvist et al. 2009) are central in order to make such practices, traditions and customs visible and in order to establish systematic grounds for teachers’ choices. In summary, science identities research and didactics in science are both in a sense concerned with inclusions and exclusions in science education. However, while the former field is mostly focused on questions of ‘who’, the latter is mostly focused on questions of ‘what’. The aim of the poster presentation is to examine how the fields of science identities research and didactics can inform each other, when approaching issues related to inclusion and exclusion in science teaching. In addition, we will discuss how a research design of a participatory research project can take the affordances and constraints of the two fields into account. Method Methodologically we take a qualitative, interpretative stance inspired by sociocultural theories of activity and identity, which posit that identity is co-produced with social, cultural and material activities (Holland et al. 1998) and is based in an intersectional, post-structural understanding of social categories (cf. Phoenix 2006). This poster presentation draws on an exploratory literature review, examining contemporary key works within the fields of science identities research and didactics in science, which can be understood as dealing with questions of inclusions and exclusions (either in relation to educational content and/or students as situated within societal power structures). Here we will zoom in on studies concerning science capital and didactic modelling, as these theoretical concepts have the potential to become influential according to the criteria for successful theories within social science (fundamental concern; novel twist; appeal to generalists and specialists; ambiguity and incompleteness) discussed by Davis (2008). Science capital was first introduced in 2012 by Louise Archer and her team, and has since gained considerable attraction within science education (the most well-cited papers have been chosen for analysis), and is part of a wider science education tradition focused on identity constitution, which also will be considered in the analysis (cf. Carlone and Johnson 2007). Didactic modelling is a concept developed in a graduate school in science education, founded on a collaboration between two of the more influential education research environments in Scandinavia (cf. Wickman et al. 2018). This concept is developed within the tradition of pragmatist didactics, and to trace this concept well-cited papers within this tradition have been analysed (e.g. Wickman and Östman 2002; Lidar 2006). The analysis of the selected studies focuses on how these approach the questions of ‘what’ and ‘who in the teaching and learning of science. In the second stage, we have developed a preliminary research design, that utilises the affordances of both fields in order to mitigate aspects that the fields may have overlooked.  Results Science identities research and didactics are both concerned with inclusions and exclusions in science education. However, the fields approach this issue from differing perspectives. An important conceptual device within science identities research is science capital, developed by Archer et al. (2015) drawing on the Bourdieusian concept of capital. Science capital collates a person’s science related economic, cultural and social resource. The concept of ‘science capital’ has been demonstrated to provide a more fine-grained analytic lens for predicting students’ science aspirations and identities than cultural capital (DeWitt et al 2016). However, in comparison to how didactics approaches science teaching and learning, the analyses are on a more over-arching level, often focusing cultural characteristics and science (such as how science is considered difficult and/or demanding a particular talent). Didactics of science, on the other hand, is concerned with the questions: ‘What content is to be taught?’, ‘How is the content going to be taught?’ and ‘Why teach this content and why in this way?’, thus allowing for a more detailed consideration of how students and teachers approach science as a field of knowledge. Here didactic models has gained quite a lot of attention lately. Didactic models are not to be considered as models for ‘best practice’, rather they are to be understood as situated conceptual frameworks (Wickman 2012). Our argument is science identities research has to potential to contribute more nuanced understandings of how students are positioned in the teaching and learning of science to didactic models, while still attending to detailed student-content interactions. Conclusions and Discussion Science identities research is just starting to influence science education practices (cf. Birmingham & Barton 2014) and despite engaging with similar issues to the field of didactics concerning student subjectification (cf. Biesta 2009), the conversation between the fields have been very limited. In addition, in longitudinal studies of science identity development (such as ASPIRES, cf. Archer & DeWitt 2017), tracing students from a young age, very few will end of choosing higher science education. As indicated by our literary review, there is potential in letting science identities studies more directly inform didactic modelling. However, we agree with Wickman (2012) that it is essential that the models, while attending to the specificities of a certain educational content are not so detailed that they oversee the contingent aspects of every teacher’s situation. We suggest that a possible research design that does this would entail: 1) a targeted approach that collect large scale qualitative data from students from under-represented groups, 2) that thick, in-depth empirical data concerning such ‘unlikely’ science students is collected (e.g. through life-history interviews), to serve as a starting-point for 3) researchers and experienced teachers to collaboratively construct didactic models. Acknowledgement This work is funded by a research grant from the Swedish Research Council (dnr. 2018:4985). References Archer, L., & DeWitt, J. (2017). Understanding young people’s science aspirations. London: Routledge. Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A. & Wong, B. (2015). ‘‘Science capital’’: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending Bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 922-948. Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22(1), 33-46. Birmingham, D. & Barton, A.C. (2014). Putting on a green carnival: Youth taking educated action on socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3), 286-314. Börjesson, M., Broady, D., Dalberg, T. & Lidegran, I. (2016). Elite education in Sweden: A contradiction in terms? In Maxwell & Aggleton (Ed.), Elite education: International perspectives on the education of elites and the shaping of education systems (pp. 92-103). London: Routledge,. Carlone, H. and Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187-1218. Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory, 9(1), 67–85. DeWitt, J., Archer, L. & Mau, A. (2016). Dimensions of science capital: exploring its potential for understanding students’ science participation. International Journal of Science Education, 38(16), 2431-2449. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W.S., Skinner, D. & Cain, C. (1998). Figured worlds. Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Holmegaard, H.T., Ulriksen, L.M. & Madsen, L.M. (2014). The process of choosing what to study: A longitudinal study of upper secondary students' identity work when choosing higher education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(1), 21-40. Lundqvist, E., Almqvist, J. & Östman, L. (2009). Epistemological norms and companion meanings in science classroom communication. Science Education, 93, 859-874. Phoenix, A. (2006). Interrogating intersectionality: Productive ways of theorising multiple positioning. Kvinder, Køn & Forskning, 2-3, 21-30. Wickman, P.-O. (2012). Using pragmatism to develop didactics in Sweden. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 15(3), 483-501. Wickman, P.-O. (2014). Teaching learning progressions: An international perspective. In Lederman & Abell (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (2nd edition) (pp. 145-163). Routledge: New York. FUS

What counts as success?:Constructions of achievement in prestigious higher education programmes

Academic achievement is regarded an indicator of the success of individuals, schools, universities and countries. ‘Success’ is typically measured using performance indicators such as test results, completion rates and other objective measures. By contrast, in this article we explore students’ subjective understandings and constructions of success, and discourses about ‘successful’ students in higher education contexts that are renowned for being demanding and pressured. We draw on data from 87 semi-structured interviews with students and staff on law, medicine and engineering physics programmes in a prestigious university in Sweden. We focus particularly upon academic expectations, effort levels, and programme structures and cultures. Achieving top grades while undertaking a range of extracurricular activities was valorised in all contexts. Top grades were especially impressive if they were attained without much effort (especially in engineering physics) or stress (especially in law and medicine); we introduce a new concept of ‘stress-less achievement’ in relation to the latter. Furthermore, being sociable as well as a high academic achiever signified living a ‘good life’ and, in law and medicine, professional competence. We discuss the implications of the dominant constructions of success, concluding that (upper) middle-class men are most likely to be read as ‘successful students’, especially in engineering physics

The identity turn in science education research: a critical review of methodologies in a consolidating field

This manuscript reflects on the affordances and limitations of methodological approaches commonly adopted by science education researchers examining learner identities. Our aims are to unpack the relative strengths and weaknesses of such approaches and note their respective prevalence. In so doing, we identify and critique studies which we consider exemplify the different approaches and, in turn, note the direction of fruitful developments and the nature of key challenges. From our review of the field, we suggest that three discrete methodological approaches can be identified: macro-studies within a psychological tradition; macro-studies within a sociological tradition; and micro-studies within an interpretive tradition. Our review comprised a critical analysis of papers included in the Web of Science databases published between 1998 and 2018. A total of 198 papers examining aspects of learner identity relating to science were identified. Of these, the majority (146) were categorised as micro-studies within an interpretive tradition. We discuss the implications of methodological choices for the advancement of understanding and further note ambiguities in the field particularly in relation to the ways in which learner identity research is conceived. We also raise questions for the field relating to the ways in which findings may be scaled, and how the field might develop to allow stronger theoretical and conceptual coherence

Other spaces for young women's identity work in physics : Resources accessed through university-adjacent informal physics learning contexts in Sweden

For young women, inbound identity trajectories into physics are generally regarded as exceptional. In this study, we investigated the experiences that young women have which may support their sustained interest and achievement in physics, and their ongoing inbound trajectories into post-secondary physics education. To understand these experiences, we look to the role of informal physics learning (IPL) environments as spaces which can offer resources that support women's trajectories into physics. In this paper, we highlight the important role of what we call "university-adjacent" IPL experiences-internships, summer schools, and associations that connect secondary students with the research lives of physicists. Focusing on case studies of six women enrolled in post-secondary physics programs across Sweden, we identify the various forms of resources made available through IPL environments, and how these create possibilities for young women to engage in forms of identity work that contribute to the construction of new possible selves in physics. Findings suggest that young women can access important relational and ideational resources through university-adjacent IPL programs. Relational resources included (a) supportive social networks, (b) enduring relationships, and (c) relatability. Importantly, our research finds that IPL opportunities that emphasize relationship building can create immersive experiences which go beyond representation and rather emphasize opportunities to develop practice-linked identities. Ideational resources emerged as (a) sources of information which possibilized physics for participants, and (b) types of information that provided possibilities to learn about the life of a physicist. Finally, while we claim that IPL experiences provide important possibilities for young women to immerse themselves in the practices of physics, we also discuss that these kinds of experiences remain inaccessible to most students, and thus reproduce a certain elitism in the field

Performing legitimate choice narratives in physics : possibilities for under-represented physics students

Higher education physics has long been a field with a disproportionately skewed representation in terms of gender, class, and ethnicity. Responding to this challenge, this study explores the trajectories of "unexpected" (i.e., demographically under-represented) students into higher education physics. Based on timeline-guided life-history interviews with 21 students enrolled in university physics programs across Sweden, the students' accounts of their trajectories into physics are analyzed as choice narratives. The analysis explores what ingredients are used to tell a legitimate story of physics participation, in relation to dominant discourses in physics culture, and wider social and political discourses. Results indicate that students narrate their choice as based on motivations of physics being a prestigious and challenging subject, of a deep interest in and a natural ability for physics, as well as a wish to use physics for contributing to the world. While most of these affiliations to physics has been documented in earlier research, the study shows how they are negotiated in relation to social locations such as gender, class and migration history, and used to perform an authentic and legitimate choice narrative in the interview situation. Furthermore, the study reports and discusses the possibility of conceiving the role of physics in students' lives as something beyond a "pure", intellectually challenging, and "prestigious" subject. In contrast, and with implications for widening participation, the stories of "unexpected" physics students indicate that physics can be reconceived as socially and altruistically oriented